Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amy Siskind

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:23, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Siskind[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable Twitter personality. Has authored one book - a collection of tweets - and founded a non-profit organization, which itself has no WP entry Gamesmaster G-9 (talk) 22:39, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there's plenty of coverage about the subject in AP, NPR, and other reliable sources. FWIW, I follow her on Twitter. Bearian (talk) 22:58, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:21, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~Does not show up in a newspapers search.~~ Does not meet WP:GNG. W C M_email 09:02, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Wee Curry Monster, she gets 2,880 Google News results, 141,000 Google Web results, 21,000 "WP reference" results [1], 48 Google Scholar results, 28 Highbeam results. Just click the links at the top of this page. Softlavender (talk) 03:49, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - [2] As I said, doesn't show up. Just googling my own name I get 403,000 hits, 488,000 for my wiki nom de plume. I guess that makes me more notable, or it could be just I've been around. W C M_email 06:55, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - You based your oppose on the fact that she doesn't come up in the long-defunct Google newspaper function, and stated that therefore she failed WP:GNG, which is a competency failure so great the rest of your AfD !votes should probably be examined. Paul Manafort doesn't even come up on a Google newspaper search [3]. And by the way, your Wikipedia username gets 13 Google web results: [4], zero news results. Softlavender (talk) 07:08, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - No I based my oppose on her lack of notability as per the nomination. A non-notable Twitter personality. But I've struck the newspapers comment, happy now or do you fancy making another personal attack? W C M_email 07:24, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: shows plenty in Google news search. Reliable sources have reviewed her book. (But someone, probably not from my side of the pond, needs to start an article on The New Agenda). PamD 15:00, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
comment out of process, no notice + nauthor: "3. The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." reviews at washpost; usatoday, phillyinquirer. Psyduck3 (talk) 03:25, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG. Has enough reliable sources. Knightrises10 (talk) 10:12, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:26, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:26, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:26, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:AUTHOR because of her new, widely reviewed book.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:34, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A well-known political activist, with a bestseller book, plenty of RS available, easily meets GNG and ANYBIO. Softlavender (talk) 03:49, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Gamesmasterg9, her book is not "a collection of tweets"; it's a lengthy list of significant abnormal events from each week of the first year since Trump was elected. Siskind was a noted activist for a decade before the book was published. Please do WP:BEFORE next time prior to nominating and article for deletion. Softlavender (talk) 07:32, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Really? A quick google search shows that prior to the 2016 election, her noted activism consisted of providing quotes to the Daily Caller, and a handful of blog posts at the Huffington Post. It is clear now that the article will be kept, but I have no doubt that my AfD proposal was appropriate.Gamesmaster G-9 (talk) 18:56, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently you lack reading comprehension as well as the ability to do a proper WP:BEFORE search. Softlavender (talk) 21:40, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly WP:NPA reminder: "Do not make personal attacks anywhere on Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor." Bakazaka (talk) 23:07, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gamesmasterg9 your nomination was spot on, this person doesn't merit an article on notability grounds. Check out which wikiproject the keep votes come from. W C M_email 06:57, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Regardless of content, as long as the book is "significant or well-known" and is the primary subject of "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" then the author passes WP:AUTHOR#3. Those criteria are verifiably met here. Bakazaka (talk) 17:47, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Siskind has been a subject of significant coverage far and wide. See for example Haaretz: Liberal Critics Slam anti-Trump #Resistance Leader Amy Siskind as an Imposter. Etc. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:03, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems like a no-brainer. The Haaretz article, scads of other sources of decent quality. Easy to establish GNG.96.127.244.27 (talk) 20:03, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.